Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 14th June 2015, 00:35   #31001  |  Link
Sunset1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 277
a Splitscreenfeautre would be great to compare different settings directly. Would that be possible or is it to much programming work?
Sunset1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 00:57   #31002  |  Link
TheLion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
It shouldn't give you a different look. If it gives you a different look then that is not what we want. We want the same picture information, just amplified so it will look sharper. That's why it's called FineSharp. It's there to make fine details sharper, a graceful sharpener. We want to always choose the most accurate algorithm for a specific goal in mind, in this case we want a sharpener and not a tool that does sharpen, but also harms the picture in lots of other ways. Especially not if no LL doesn't produce these weird image artefacts. The negative effects of LL will get even more visible on low-resolution content if you upscale it. That's what my samples show and your samples show them, too.

The problem with most of people's tests is that they see that something is different and they instantly like it. madVR is about an accurate reproduction of what you feed it (accurate source reproduction). It's important that we settle on something that works for everyone and for that you have to prove that something is worth it or not worth it with actual real word samples.

If you can provide screenshots that show real benefits of LL in actual image content, which I doubt, it should be prefered, otherwise it adds unnecessary artefacts which are not there with no LL. The squirrel perfectly shows that no LL is more accurate. And there's a clear conflict, because you now tell me that LL is still prefered, which it clearly isn't, if you compared the images I took about 30 minutes to do.

This is how we did came this far, by judging based on some actual facts instead of "what I like best is what must be best".

You cannot just simply ignore one thing and then end the discussion with something like "the majority" agrees. The "majority" hasn't even shown some screenshots to compare. There's very few people left, apparently, that take their time to let everyone take part in comparisons. That's how it was done in the past, that's how it should be done.

Let's hope other people take their time, too, and provide samples and screenshots.
Again, I understand your point and even agree with most your arguments.
Both LL On and Off give a SLIGHTLY different look, and both obviously look vastly different from the original (FineSharp off). I can see why you interpret LL off as more "accurate" (as in "does what I would expect a traditional sharpening filter to do with the original) by those zoomed screenshots.
But if you really insist on discussing those screenshots again, here is my take: With your example I don't have any preference pro contra LL whatsoever. Those minor single pixel deviations are completely insignificant in my opinion - even in this zoomed screenshot scenario, let alone real world video content. To call them "weird image artifacts" and "more accurate to the original" is not my interpretation at all.
When I look at the sqirrel chart I vastly prefer the overall results with LL on. Call it "inaccurate", filtered, over-shoot compensated, whatever. The ringing/EE is dealt with much more "gracefully", while the "more representative of real video content" squirrel image shows again - in my opinion - completely insignifcant deviations in single pixels.

I am certainly not opposed to your objective approach of comparing pixels in zoomed screen captures (afterall I was one of those wasting way too much time @avs during the format/screen cap war comparing countless VC-1/AVC shots...), but in this case I still prefer LL on overall - as is the case with all video content I have tried. By a very small margin as the differences are minor given the proper context.
TheLion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 01:09   #31003  |  Link
iSunrise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post
...Those minor single pixel deviations are completely insignificant in my opinion - even in this zoomed screenshot scenario, let alone real world video content. To call them "weird image artifacts" and "more accurate to the original" is not my interpretation at all.
When I look at the sqirrel chart I vastly prefer the overall results with LL on.
You again keep repeating that you prefer the squirrel with LL on, when I have clearly shown that LL on has artifacts that LL off doesn't. If you really had taken the time to compare them quickly side by side and you switched between them, you would instantly see what I see. The red arrows clearly show the problem and they are no exception, because these artefacts are also in my samples, which is not a coincidence by any means. I am not sure where you are going with this.

It's up to madshi to decide and the others to provide additional input, but I clearly am NOT satisfied with what I see when LL is on. It completely changes the image from the look with LL off.

LL always was a huge problem, even when we tested the dithering algorithms. It made the picture a lot darker overall. For some reason LL only works really good with downsampling, but doesn't for other features.

Hoping for some input from the usual suspects, like I mentioned before.

Last edited by iSunrise; 14th June 2015 at 01:22.
iSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 01:48   #31004  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 842
While we're debating this, I read on the FineSharp wiki that it is intended for high quality sources...

Quote:
Small and relatively fast realtime-sharpening function, for 1080p, or after scaling 720p -> 1080p during playback (to make 720p look more like being 1080p).
It's a generic sharpener. Only for good quality sources! (If the source is crap, FineSharp will happily sharpen the crap.) Noise/grain will be enhanced, too. The method is GENERIC.

Modus operandi: A basic nonlinear sharpening method is performed, then the *blurred* sharp-difference gets subtracted again.
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 03:42   #31005  |  Link
seiyafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 161
Don't mean to veer off the current topic but what advantage does "D3D 11 for presentation" provide?
seiyafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 03:56   #31006  |  Link
JarrettH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 842
It enters and exits full screen exclusive mode much faster and there may be a performance advantage
JarrettH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 08:50   #31007  |  Link
yukinok25
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnahadnagy View Post
Finesharp: It is quite interesting IMO. It produces a completely different look than LumaSharpen, and I think its up to personal preference. As for me, I like finesharp for doing a bit of a touchup. LSharpen has better effect for more sharpening, if I want that.
Repair at 1 looks great, found no problems. Thinning: lower than 0.025, thats sure, I like it most between 0.018 and 0.02. As for strength: 2.2 seems to be good for high preset for me too. For mid I would go with 1.4, and 0.9-1.1 for low.

I didnt test LL much, but I do prefer it on with anime.
I am new here, and I started to read this thread a couple of months ago.

I have been using MadVR for this period and played with the settings to get the best image video I could.
I have been paying with the image enhancement setting and I am totally agree with you here fine sharp is absolutely outstanding for me.

So far the best image I got its with repair at 0.50, mode 3.

All the others settings around 0.02/.003.

Last edited by yukinok25; 14th June 2015 at 08:52.
yukinok25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 08:50   #31008  |  Link
omarank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
One question: With debanding there were often some thresholds where increasing one parameter by 0.1 didn't do much, but increasing 0.2 suddenly brought a big change. I think this is not the case with FineSharp, correct?
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
A small change in the FineSharp parameters causes a small change in image quality, right?
Right
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I suppose if I decided to use 1.4/2.0/2.4 that wouldn't bother you much?
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Or is there something "magic" about your choices of 1.5/2.0/2.3? Not that I'm planning to use 1.4/2.0/2.4, just asking how "fixed" your suggestions are.
There is nothing magical about 1.5/2.0/2.3 as changing a parameter by 0.1 or 0.2 doesnít cause an abrupt change in sharpness. However, 1.5 is the threshold above which I start to see the sharpening effect that I find pleasing. 2.3 is the upper limit beyond which sharpness seems excessive.


@iSunrise: I saw your comparison screenshots and I found the LL versions more pleasing. The artefacts which you have highlighted are just too insignificant in my opinion and donít bother me in any way.

You prefer Linear Light being disabled for FineSharp. Apparently, you use dithering algorithms too with Linear Light disabled, as with it enabled you find the images too dark. This may have to do with the calibration state of your display. I can think of two possibilities: either your display is not calibrated and has a weird gamma, or it is calibrated and you are using some custom calibration settings. There are some users who complain about the images being brighter when using LL setting for downscaling. They see this problem for the same reason that their display is not properly calibrated.
omarank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 10:12   #31009  |  Link
Razoola
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 454
For me there are so many different factors involved with these sharpners and scaling that your never going to get one option fits all. What would be really cool is for an option that works as follows. The user first plays/seeks through a video and pauses on any frame they wish. Then with a set key press madvr will display that frame of video using its various available settings (maybe pressing another key to cycle through each). The user can then choose the setting they require and the video will then play back from the start with the new settings applied.
Razoola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 11:16   #31010  |  Link
Hprd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
I didn't test thinning for finesharp, but with the other settings set to that way (mode 3, linear light, etc), I find that (using finesharp as an image enhancement, not upscaling refinement, because it results in aliasing) the strength I prefer depends on the video type (or how much it's upscaled by it seems).

For quadrupling (nnedi3 64 / 32) I prefer a strength of 0. For doubling (nnedi3 64) a strength of 1 seems pretty good. Basically finesharp upscaling refinement (with the default strength there of 2, and ll on, mode 3, etc. And image refined only after upscaling was complete) is what I compared it with (as I found that gives IMO optimal sharpness for any video type with nnedi3 doubling/quadrupling. But has visible aliasing and increased render times). And those strengths for those videos (DVD/720p video) are what gave pretty much the same (minus the aliasing) results with image enhancement only. I also don't see myself ever using this sharpening on a video that doesn't need to be upscaled, so I didn't test anything there...

Also, the default chroma supersharp settings can result in horrible artefacts on bright/white backgrounds/colors (with jinc3 AR, nnedi3, and I would imagine any other scaler. This was on a dvd sourced video too, maybe it has something to do with that?). I found that setting it to the "non-double" defaults or just simply turning up the anti-rining setting a bit fixed this.

Last edited by Hprd; 14th June 2015 at 11:46.
Hprd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 12:07   #31011  |  Link
TheLion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by omarank View Post

@iSunrise: I saw your comparison screenshots and I found the LL versions more pleasing. The artefacts which you have highlighted are just too insignificant in my opinion and donít bother me in any way.
My words and thougths exactly.
TheLion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 12:44   #31012  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
While I really like FineSharp (since it's very natural looking, easily my favourite sharpener) and most of the FineSharp settings you settled on, linear light produces artefacts and doesn't look natural at all. Without linear light it's fine. See the following screenshots that show the artefacts very clearly. This happens with other samples as well. I marked them so you can compare original -> no LL (very natural) and original -> LL (unnatural and with artefacts). Also please compare no LL -> LL, because you will instantly see that the LL image is artefacting all over the place.
I do see slightly different behaviour when comparing LL on with LL off. With your screenshots there are some parts where LL off looks "better", but other parts where one could argue that LL on might be nearer to the source. I've also seen other images where LL off had more artifacts than LL on. I find it hard to say which is better. You can find examples which makes either one of them look better than the other. That's why I asked for feedback. And so far almost everybody preferred LL *on*. You're the only one preferring it off atm. That doesn't mean I will necessarily go with the majority, but if I'm not sure myself, the majority is going to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
For comparisons to really make sense, people need to also do screenshots and show them here. For some reason, the newly introduced features very rarely if at all are really looked at in detail with screenshots. I really would have loved to read some feedback on FineSharp from 6233638 and cyberbeing, too.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
As for your questions regarding "low", "medium" and "high", I found that strength "0.2", "0.5" and "1.0" are giving the perfect mix. 0.2 is very mild sharpening (transparent enough to be completely natural), 0.5 is medium sharping (still very natural) and 1.0 is very visible sharpening, where you really need the extra "oomph" for bringing out details (but you can tell it's been sharpened). If you go any higher, you get very visible artefacts up to the point where it gets quite distracting (2.0 already rings like crazy, 1.5 is also not satisfactory).
It's quite interesting how different the feedback is. You suggest 1.0 for high, while others have suggested 1.5 for low. It's going to be difficult for me to make a decision there...

FWIW, are you testing FineSharp in image enhancements or for upscaling refinement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
The thinning parameter is a bit difficult to be honest, I settled on "0.020" for all strengths, because higher values than that give artefacts. You can easily tell when you test with "0.100", which looks horrible. So be careful with that setting.
Interestingly, for upscaling refinement with a good image doubling algorithm (e.g. NNEDI3), I find that I like rather low strength, but higher thinning. E.g. I've tried strength 0.0 and thinning 0.35 and like it. But it's hard to say which is "better". It might really be a matter of taste. Unfortunately that's not going to help. I very very much want to reduce the number of options as much as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
For some reason you left out 5) when you quoted me, you absolutely need this to reproduce it.

If you really cannot reproduce it, which I doubt, since I am using default settings, I will add it to the bug tracker.
I had expected a neon green image (which you get with corrupted chroma channels). But the problem you reported was just a "mild" green tinge. I've noticed the green tinge now myself when testing with a neutral gray source, and the problem will be fixed in the next build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ikarad View Post
It seems that directx 11 is more demanding than directx 9 path. With madvr 0.88.11 or 0.88.8 and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLprVF6d7Ug (I have downloaded 8k movie), I have lotsd of presentation glitch with dx11 patch and not with dx9 path

With my 1080p videos, there aren't presentation glitchs with dx11 patch.
There probably isn't much I can do about it. Are you using windowed mode or FSE mode? Try FSE mode, that's usually less sensitive to presentation glitches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnahadnagy View Post
Finesharp: It is quite interesting IMO. It produces a completely different look than LumaSharpen, and I think its up to personal preference. As for me, I like finesharp for doing a bit of a touchup. LSharpen has better effect for more sharpening, if I want that.
Repair at 1 looks great, found no problems. Thinning: lower than 0.025, thats sure, I like it most between 0.018 and 0.02. As for strength: 2.2 seems to be good for high preset for me too. For mid I would go with 1.4, and 0.9-1.1 for low.

I didnt test LL much, but I do prefer it on with anime.
Are we talking about upscaling refinement or image enhancement?

I think for upscaling refinement thinning might benefit from higher values, compared to image enhancement. At least that's an impression I got, but I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
Actually, you found exactly the same as I did, however, it seems that you misinterpreted the results of your sample or at the very least, you came up with a different conclusion, because you probably didn't also zoom into the video and inspected more closely why the diagonal lines behave the way they do when they are sharpened. Also, I have found exactly the same image artefacts that I got in my samples in yours, which I showed in my last post (the weird blackness that consumes the image (borders) and seems to completely destroy image details that were there before).

The strength of "2.0" already does so much sharpening to the image that it shows you exactly what you would expect. It amplifies the picture details and thus, it will also show you compression artefacts a lot stronger than before. The diagonal lines now have a white glow around them, which is because there were already quite strong visible compression artefacts that you can see when you zoom into the lines and they get "amplified" by the amount of sharpening you did.

So what does this mean? It means that no LL shows you _exactly_ what you did, it shows you the oversharpening transparently, which is why the diagonal lines look oversharpened. Now, if you take a look at the squirrel (which actually resembles real image content a lot more) it still looks completely natural, although oversharpened, caused by the high strength settings.

Now, this is what happens when I turn on LL:

1) The squirrel image now has very visible artefacts (I marked them) and it looks unnaturally sharpened.

2) What's interesting is that the effects of finesharp with LL for some reason do soften up the visible compression artefacts around the black diagonal lines, so much that it almosts acts like a de-amplification of the sharpener itself, it acts like it masks the sharpening effect. However, this is not what you would expect when you sharpen an image, especially not with the diagonal lines that are already artefacting (compression related) and also should get sharpened up. However, this effect is also not translating to the squirrel image, which is full of artefacts, meaning, you're not only oversharpening and masking, but LL also adds some very weird artefacts to the squirrel that are not part of the original image of the squirrel (look at the red arrows).
When looking at your squirrel screenshots I see something different than you're seeing. Yes, the LL on image has a different look to it than the LL off image. But neither of them matches the original, obviously, because they're both manipulated versions of the original. So the key question is: Which sharpened image looks subjective better? And which sharpened image looks like a better representation of the original?

The "LL off" image seems to brighten up the whiskers of the squirrel, compared to the original image, and it also enlarges the "dot" on the black background right of the right ear. Also if you look at the right ear, it appears to "grow" a little bit, compared to the original image. I don't think that is what a sharpening algorithm should do. If you look at the "LL on" image, a part of the whiskers seems to get more faint, which is bad. However, the size of the "dot" and the whiskers and the right ear etc all seems to stay unchanged. Which to me feels like a more faithful representation of what I would expected from a sharpening of the original image.

There are some other images where I've also found that the "LL off" version appears to make things noticeably brighter, while the "LL on" version manages to make things sharper without changing the overall brightness of the image. E.g. compare these three images with a strength of 2.0:

http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest1.png
http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest2.png
http://madshi.net/FineSharpTest3.png

When enabling FineSharp with "LL off", you should notice that the image becomes brighter overall, compared to the original image. This does not happen (at least not as much) with "LL on". A sharpener is *not* supposed to change the brightness of the original image, is it?

Or what do you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XMonarchY View Post
So do people like FineSharp more than LumaSharpen?
Yes, I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XMonarchY View Post
I still keep gettiing occassional stutters, up to 10-15 times during a 45 minute video. It does create dropped and repeated frames during those stutters. I am still unable to figure out what is causing it... Can I provide some log or something? I have very slow upload speed of 512Kbits/second, so if the log is huge, I won't be able to upload it.
Which queues are getting (near) empty when the drops occur? Which is the top most queue (read from top to bottom in the OSD) which is getting near empty? That's the key information to find out where the bottleneck is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
If you can provide screenshots that show real benefits of LL in actual image content, which I doubt, it should be prefered, otherwise it adds unnecessary artefacts which are not there with no LL. The squirrel perfectly shows that no LL is more accurate.
I have my doubts about which squirrel is more accurate, see my comments above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset1982 View Post
a Splitscreenfeautre would be great to compare different settings directly. Would that be possible or is it to much programming work?
Maybe in a far away future. Too much work at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSunrise View Post
LL always was a huge problem, even when we tested the dithering algorithms. It made the picture a lot darker overall. For some reason LL only works really good with downsampling, but doesn't for other features.
Actually for dithering LL is much better, IMHO. If LL dithering makes the image a lot darker that would suggest that your monitor's gamma response is weird. For smooth motion FRC LL is also much better. Same with color, gamut, gamma, saturation, hue, contrast adjustments etc. The only situation where LL really makes problems is scaling, because there it adds stronger ringing artifacts. But apart from the stronger ringing artifacts it also works fine there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seiyafan View Post
Don't mean to veer off the current topic but what advantage does "D3D 11 for presentation" provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JarrettH View Post
It enters and exits full screen exclusive mode much faster and there may be a performance advantage
I don't think D3D11 has performance advantages. However, it allows native 10bit output, if the display supports it. That's the key advantage, and as you say, maybe faster switching between windowed <-> FSE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yukinok25 View Post
I have been paying with the image enhancement setting and I am totally agree with you here fine sharp is absolutely outstanding for me.

So far the best image I got its with repair at 0.50, mode 3.

All the others settings around 0.02/.003.
Do you see any problems with repair set to 1.0? If so, I'd love to see a screenshot. I was planning to remove the repair option and set it fixed to 1.0. So if you found a situation where repair 1.0 is harmful, it would be good to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razoola View Post
For me there are so many different factors involved with these sharpners and scaling that your never going to get one option fits all. What would be really cool is for an option that works as follows. The user first plays/seeks through a video and pauses on any frame they wish. Then with a set key press madvr will display that frame of video using its various available settings (maybe pressing another key to cycle through each). The user can then choose the setting they require and the video will then play back from the start with the new settings applied.
Not going to happen, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hprd View Post
I didn't test thinning for finesharp, but with the other settings set to that way (mode 3, linear light, etc), I find that (using finesharp as an image enhancement, not upscaling refinement, because it results in aliasing) the strength I prefer depends on the video type (and how much it's upscaled by it seems).
Yes, for image enhancement that's expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hprd View Post
For quadrupling (nnedi3 64 / 32) I prefer a strength of 0. For doubling (nnedi3 64) a strength of 1 seems pretty good. Basically the default settings for finesharp upscaling refinement (with the default strength there of 2) is what I compared it with (as I found that gives IMO optimal sharpness for any video type with nnedi3 doubling/quadrupling. But has visible aliasing and increased render times). And those strengths for those videos (DVD/720p video) are what gave pretty much the same (minus the aliasing) results with image enhancement only.
Not sure why you get aliasing when using FineSharp in upscaling refinement. Shouldn't be the case. Please set repair to 1.0, that might help a bit. But yes, rendering times are higher when using FineSharp in upscaling refinement. That's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hprd View Post
Also, the default chroma supersharp settings can result in horrible artefacts on bright/white backgrounds/colors (with jinc3 AR, nnedi3, and I would imagine any other scaler. This was on a dvd sourced video too, maybe it has something to do with that?). I found that setting it to the "non-double" defaults or just simply turning up the anti-rining setting a bit fixed this.
Shiandow is working once again on improving/rewriting SuperRes. So let's wait with that. For now, FineSharp. Thanks.

-------

Please everybody, when giving FineSharp feedback, specify whether you've tested FineSharp in image enhancements or in upscaling refinement. And when testing it in upscaling refinement, please also state your image doubling/upscaling algorithm and the upscaling factor. Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 13:05   #31013  |  Link
Ver Greeneyes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 445
I've noticed something interesting about the "how many video frames shall be presented in advance" setting (testing windowed mode, DX11 path): with anything higher than 8, my rendering times seem to go up significantly! I figured the higher the better, since it would have more of a buffer in case of lag spikes, but 10 raises rendering times by about 2ms, and even more with the higher settings. I'm guessing that with my GeForce GTX 580, at least, anything higher than 8 makes it miss some more optimized paths and/or caching. So yeah, I'll be sticking with 8 - haven't noticed any advantage to lower settings, but that might well depend on the hardware

Last edited by Ver Greeneyes; 14th June 2015 at 13:47.
Ver Greeneyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 13:32   #31014  |  Link
Hprd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
Quote:
Please set repair to 1.0, that might help a bit.
I was. I think it's more noticeable for dvd resolution stuff, but on 720p it's there as well.


Comparison (with settings I posted above and 720x480 video):

Enhancement:



Refinement:

Hprd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 13:39   #31015  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ver Greeneyes View Post
I've noticed something interesting about the "how many video frames shall be presented in advance" setting (testing windowed mode, DX11 path): with anything higher than 8, my rendering times seem to go up significantly! I figured the higher the better, since it would have more of a buffer in case of lag spikes, but 10 raises rendering times by about 2ms, and even more with the higher settings. I'm guessing that with my GeForce GTX 580, at least, anything higher than 8 makes it manage the memory differently, and that makes it miss some more optimized paths and/or caching. So yeah, I'll be sticking with 8 - haven't noticed any advantage to lower settings, but that might well depend on the hardware
Oh well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hprd View Post
I was. I think it's more noticeable for dvd resolution stuff, but on 720p it's there as well.

Comparison (with settings I posted above and 720x480 video):

Enhancement:



Refinement:

Ouch. Can I have a small sample of that file, so I can test/reproduce it on my PC? Which upscaling/doubling algorithm are you using? LumaSharpen and SuperRes are turned off, right?
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 14:03   #31016  |  Link
Hprd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 60
I was using nnedi3 for doubling and quadrupling (64 and 32 neurons respectively), "CR" with AR and LL for downscaling. Jinc3 AR for image scaling and chroma scaling (with super res at "non-double" defaults as normal defaults there gives artefacts for now). Only finesharp on (either image enhancement, or upscaling refinement, never both).

That aliasing appears ONLY when turning on finesharp for upscaling refinement (super res is cleaner, although still not 100% perfect in this regard either). Repair at 1 helps a little (as it's even worse with lower values), but not that much obviously... For image enhancement it doesn't appear at all regardless of the strength and whatnot it seems.

I took out the part I used for the comparisons above:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/79kr00hyz1...0Clip.zip?dl=0

Last edited by Hprd; 14th June 2015 at 14:06.
Hprd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 14:52   #31017  |  Link
Barnahadnagy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Are we talking about upscaling refinement or image enhancement?
Image enhancement mostly, but its more or less the same for upscaling refinement. For upscaling, at strength 2.4 I do like 0.035 more than 0.02. At lower stregnths I'm not sure. For enhancement I'm not sure at 2.4, and prefer 0.02 at lower.
I think for upscaling refinement I prefer LumaSharpen overall. FineSharp is great to make good (and high-res) sources sharper, but doesnt work that well for more than 2x upscaling, eg. DVDs.
Barnahadnagy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 14:53   #31018  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hprd View Post
I was using nnedi3 for doubling and quadrupling (64 and 32 neurons respectively), "CR" with AR and LL for downscaling. Jinc3 AR for image scaling and chroma scaling (with super res at "non-double" defaults as normal defaults there gives artefacts for now). Only finesharp on (either image enhancement, or upscaling refinement, never both).

That aliasing appears ONLY when turning on finesharp for upscaling refinement (super res is cleaner, although still not 100% perfect in this regard either). Repair at 1 helps a little (as it's even worse with lower values), but not that much obviously... For image enhancement it doesn't appear at all regardless of the strength and whatnot it seems.

I took out the part I used for the comparisons above:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/79kr00hyz1...0Clip.zip?dl=0
Thanks, it's an interesting clip. From what I can see, the real cause of the aliasing is in the source (although faint), and somehow the combination of using NNEDI3 for doubling and then FineSharp on top for upscaling refinement brings it out a lot. FWIW, the next madVR build will have Hyllian's super-xbr algorithm as an image doubling alternative, which seems to hide the aliasing a bit better than NNEDI3. With that setup, FineSharp in upscaling refinement seems to work better with this clip, although some aliasing is still there.

With a really high quality source, using FineSharp in upscaling refinement produces better image quality than using it in image enhancements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnahadnagy View Post
Image enhancement mostly, but its more or less the same for upscaling refinement. For upscaling, at strength 2.4 I do like 0.035 more than 0.02. At lower stregnths I'm not sure. For enhancement I'm not sure at 2.4, and prefer 0.02 at lower.
Ok, makes sense. Although I do seem to generally prefer lower strengths and higher thinning for upscaling refinement, compared to image enhancements.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 15:20   #31019  |  Link
ikarad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

There probably isn't much I can do about it. Are you using windowed mode or FSE mode? Try FSE mode, that's usually less sensitive to presentation glitches.
Thanks.
I use FSE mode.

Why dx11 path is more demanding?
ikarad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 16:07   #31020  |  Link
baii
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ver Greeneyes View Post
I've noticed something interesting about the "how many video frames shall be presented in advance" setting (testing windowed mode, DX11 path): with anything higher than 8, my rendering times seem to go up significantly! I figured the higher the better, since it would have more of a buffer in case of lag spikes, but 10 raises rendering times by about 2ms, and even more with the higher settings. I'm guessing that with my GeForce GTX 580, at least, anything higher than 8 makes it miss some more optimized paths and/or caching. So yeah, I'll be sticking with 8 - haven't noticed any advantage to lower settings, but that might well depend on the hardware
I have similar experience in fse mode but not windowed mode. Always thought it is hardware dependent though. The default setting is pretty safe though.

Sent from my 306SH
baii is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.